Trevor Carolan is a mediocre writer and was an even worse politician. He belongs to that small club of bad pols who were 'unelected' by the voters after only one term.
The Official Community Plan of North Vancouver District..( OCP ) does not reflect the wishes of the people that live here. We did not buy our homes ( and PAY THE PRICE ) in the Metrotown area, although we certainly have had and continue to have that choice. We chose to buy in a less convenient, quieter, less crowded part of the world that should not fall prey to rampant densification that the Burnaby mall has.
Unfortunately, the council and its ideologically driven planners have proposed a plan that has no limit to growth in our District. Peruse this plan, and find ANY REFERENCE to the end of growth and densification. You won't find it because it has had no consideration at all. When asked, the planners, mayor and council continue on with the 'We MUST provide homes for the people who have not yet arrived here but we KNOW are going to arrive'. That's infinite growth, and will very soon result in an equivalent to Metrotown at Lynn Valley Centre, greatly increased traffic on both bridges, and a loss of 'village' ambience that I for one have never asked for as it provides me with zero benefits and many compromises to the life I chose to live here.
It is time to stand up to the development and urbanization voices that have taken control of the levers of municipal government. Building hirises will NOT improve our neighbourhoods, and it will NOT save the planet as some seem to believe.
Very prosaic style, apart, nothing new in the argument. It's anti-density because no more people need to move to the North Shore and our property taxes should rise and our amenties should dwindle. I do take issue with his insensitive reference to Ernie Crist. Also, I have in the last2 months seen two neighbours in their 80s and 90s take advantage of this tower and continue to live in our community even thougth it was was 'rammed' down our throats. I welcome seeing Trevor at the public hearing.
As a long-time resident of Lynn Valley, I have seen the municipal politics in action.
There was a referendum in Lynn Valley in 1996 and we voted for densification, as we have seen all along Lynn Valley Road and Mountain Highway and also many zoning changes throughout Lynn Valley.
We voted for designated bike lanes on Lynn Valley Road. We did not get them. The Lynn Valley Community Association and District council didn't even put a back lane for deliveries to and from these condos.
Delivery and moving trucks regularly block a full lane on Lynn Valley Road.
Great article. This Seylynn project is ridiculous. I cannot possibly think of a worse place of densification. Our municipal politicians must need money to support their single detached homes, except for Walton and he lives in a very high end condo.
That is an astounding claim to make. Are you suggesting that Council members are on the take? That's the only way they would get money "to support their single detached homes" as you claim, because with a broader tax base, everyone's taxes--including yours if you own property--might actually go down, or at least rise less quickly!
Hey Griff this whole thread has more nutty claims than usual.
You nailed the last one.
DNV Management are slipping through high density developments? For what possible purpose? They get the same wage packet if there isn't a single new shack built in N. Van unless the poster is alleging that management is getting kickbacks. If so then prove it. On the other hand some of the pols aren't adverse to lapping up some developer campaign donations.
Somehow "Liberals" are able to elect the majority of politicians even though the majority of residents apparently are non-Liberals. Nice trick if you can pull it off. Speaks poorly of the non-Liberal majority too lazy to vote.
All capped of by Carolan's absurd assertion that Ernie C. died for parking.
Want to freak out the anti-density conspiracy folk. Imagine a DNV Management Liberal who lives in a single family residence lurking around high density developments with their gas guzzling car brazenly parked nearby.
It would be possible to credit Carolan's comments with more weight if he were3 able to explain how we are going to provide housing options for seniors who can't maintain their single family homes without having them leave the community, or arrange for young families sufficient funds to purchase many of these $1 mil homes. The Town and Village centres will begin to give DNV a chance to built a financially viable future. Too many people crying for maintaining the status quo are unwilling to accept the true cost of their lifestyle. It would make a stronger argument if Carolan and his supporters signed undertakings to accept full cost of their provided services and to never accept moving from their treed single family lots in their lifetime. The position of Carolan amounts to a form of class warfare.
Tell us then, the 'true cost of their lifestyle' wont you?
While you're at it, let us know why DNV will not have a 'chance to build a finacially viable future' unless we decimate the present configuration of our neighbourhoods.
I'm not Anon 8:31 but I think that the true cost of their lifestyle is quite obvious. Our escalting taxes that try to meet the cost of providing gov't services like police, fire, water, sewer, streets, and includes public facilities like rec centres, parks, playing fields etc.
We are approaching the upper limit of tax tolerance which will necessarily require a scaling back of services and facilities to balance them with an affordable taxation level.
A strategy used by N.V. City is to allow highrise developments which have a small physcial footprint requiring relatively low cost maintenance of street frontage, water, sewer,fire protection but generate a high return of tax dollars for the frontage utilized.
So while that answers both of Anon 11:22's questions there are other issues.
Anon 8:31 is quite right when he points out that additional small, easy care residences will be increasingly needed with our aging population. There is never a problem selling N. Shore single family homes as all real estate sells, the only question is at what price?
The cash cow tax revenue positives of high density residences are offset by greater congestion and pressure on existing local services.
In the case of N.V. City their residents can trot off to the District to use their more than 100 parks, their rec facilities and playing fields, access the District's fire dept. in emergencies, pull police from the Dist to the City as necessary which allows for their high density approach to work.
For the Dist. they will pay a premium (in taxes) to maintain the single family neighbourhoods and will need to maintain a fine balance of revenue generators (high density) to offset the tax burden while trying to retain the neighbourhood quality of life.
Given the city permitting density like mad it will become increasingly difficult for the Dist. to satisfy all N. Van residents.
All in all we can expect to see ever increasing taxes and N. Shore congestion with a slow erosion of services as the Leave it to Beaver 1960's N. Shore lifestyle will slowly be consigned to history.
The "true cost of their lifestyle" will include the cost of replacing all of the miles of sewer and water services, roads, bridges etc. that are required to service a district of low population density. The infrastructure is breaking down and at the end of its 60 year service life. Similar to the need to replace William Griffin, with its $50 mil+ cost. DNV Council is planning to borrow $28 mil and obtain the rest through land sale of the falling down Delbrook. The loan is simply - as agreed by DNV's financial officer, another form of deferred taxes. The present residents of DNV are pushing forward the true cost of their lifestyle onto the succeeding generation. There has not been the re-investment and amortization of the present structure but everyone seems to want nothing to change. With luck many of those opposing the changes will be dead when the bill comes due and can leave it to others to clean up the mess. The "decimation" of your neighbourhoods will happen not through the small changes of the town and village centres, but through the decay and unaffordability of our (mine included) single family neighborhoods. Can your own kids afford to live here? The OCP plan will use less than 4% of DNV land mass for a plan stretching 20 years. The fact is DNV taxpayers are not interested in the reality of the true cost of their lifestyle. They have maxed out the credit card and are hoping someone else comes along to pay the bill.
Anon 10:21. Completely agree with your correct financial projection.
Don't believe that our single family neighbourhoods themselves will physically decay except for the water/sewer/street maintenance infrastructure that you have pointed out that must be replaced/maintained.
Residents will maintain their personal physical property, if nothing more than to retain its value.
Of course our kids can't afford to live here - that's a given and a topic that has been well discussed on this blog. However, someone can afford to live here and they will continue to purchase our residences. N. Shore real estate sells well. Perhaps the new well-heeled residents will be happy to pay the inflated taxes to renew our crumbling infrastructure?
Anon 10:21 returning here: Yes, as Anon 6:20 states, someone can afford to purchase our residences but most likely not to retain their current form (look at Shaunessey/Kerrisdale). North Vancouver has metamorphed from an essentially working class neighbourhood ('40s) to upper middle class (present). The rising costs will increasingly fall on those least able to absorb them (seniors on fixed income). The problems of an unbalanced tax base will accrue most severely on those who are asset rich but cash poor. Residents need to begin looking to their own long term self interest and that will require housing options beyond the existing primacy of single family neighbourhoods with mandatory automobile use dictated by distance and low density.
Well, despite her anonymity, I believe that Wendy Q. is alive and well on this blog, with her small-minded thinking that resists change and critizes others for making a choice similar to the one that she herself made years ago, and that is to live in North Vancouver.
There is no dispute that the North Shore used to be a working class neighbourhood, but that was before bridges made it practical to build housing that was ultimately purchased by people who decided that it was a pretty nice place to live. Today, the North Shore is regarded as a relatively low-density, low crime, nice view neighbourhood that is relatively close to downtown, and people actually want to live here!!! That alone is responsible for property values being so high.
The challenge for elected officials is to manage growth in a careful way which preserves the character of existing neighbourhoods as much as possible while providing the opportunity to increase the tax base. I think the town centre concept does that.
I am not sure that it's the mandate of civic officials to provide "affordable" housing, however one chooses to define it, but I think it's a noble goal that should be fostered, especially in communities with the land base to permit such opportunities. I believe that North Vancouver falls into that category, but I question whether it's the responsibility of local government to provide it, rather senior government(s)should work with municipalities towards that goal.
Regardless of that, increase the tax base has certain advantages. How will Wendy and others react to the reality of no money to replace rotting sewer pipes in their little enclaves, without horrendous tax increases? That's what intelligently planned density does, to my way of thinking at least.
Change is inevitable and we may not like everything that happens, but if it's done right, and by that I mean carefully, it's easier to swallow.
Even now, we see significant need for replacement of sewers and other infrastructure, and if there is a broader tax base, everyone will pay less in the long run.
The change to N. Shore single family residence purchases and occupancy began decades ago and continues.
In the 50's, 60's we had a fairly homogenous local market for N. Shore residences with little foreign interest.
Increasingly we have had significant and competitive foreign purchasing that has driven our detached home costs beyond the reach of many of the local market folk, i.e. the comment that our children can't afford to live here.
Government can't afford to and shouldn't try to subsidize the general free market as it invariably ends in an expensive unsustainable mess. Many of the sunbelt US states charge foreign owners a premium on their annual property tax.
Very recently Hong Kong has implemented a similar foreign owner tax.
That approach is about the extent of gov't meddling in the free market that I would be comfortable with here except to approve senior multi-family developments to allow folks to age in their community and suites/carriage homes to allow families to care for their parents on their own property.
Limited higher density in core communities and not generally dispersed through the single family residential neighbourhoods is OK too.
Hah! In response to the leaflet dropped in our mailbox I just wrote to City hall!
District of North Vancouver District Council Michael Hartford, Community Planner Karen Rendek, Policy Planner, Sustainable Community Development Department
Hello all,
Earlier today our home as leafleted by a group opposed to development in Lynn Valley.
I'd like you to know that many people in this nieghbourhood actually support densification and development.
A larger population base will bring greater variety in shopping and services. Perhaps it will even bring some capital-C Culture to this part of North Vancouver.
A larger population base will encourage the success of the Lynn Valley Village and Mall. The status quo will leave us with a slowly dying mall that will likely wither away once Zellers has been closed.
A larger population base will bring a diversity of voices, cultures, and ages - all of which would be very welcome.
Please add my name as SUPPORTING this development.
Barry Rueger
Honestly, the anti-development propaganda is about as fact based as the Romney propaganda down south. If you can't find facts, just make 'em up!
Then again, I haven't lived here in the same single family, all paid for house since 1947, so what could I possibly know? Heck, I probably wouldn't even yell at kids for playing on my lawn.
Sounds like your comments are no more backed up with facts that anyone else's Barry. What facts have you given? They're just your opinions. Besides it is an anti-highrise voice, not an anti-development voice that is gathering momentum in Lynn Valley. You seem to have missed that.
Wendy Q ran on no growth, John Gilmour ran on significant densification,
Both were beat by a hair dresser and the entire previous council.
I think the vast majority of residents want a middle ground on development. Some density in the town centres, but very little change to the vast majority of single family areas.
Wendy did not run on no growth. She knows growth is inevitable, however it should be slow prudent growth, not massive highrises built throughout the DNV built at the same time.
WHy the incessant references to Metrotown? Anon 4:37, rather than heckle others for expressing their opinions, how about explaining to us why density at the town centres is a bad idea. Why it won't work. Come on, stop being lazy and do some research and develop an argument against development. Express your opinion and be prepared to support it with some facts. Stop sniping at people for their opinions. All you're doing is coming across as uninformed.
The Mayors would like to see us out of our cars, taking transit, or riding a bike. With all the building for density, we will soon not have a choice in the matter. But if the real estate is getting sluggish, why so much building?
It seems that the two North Van councils (or is it just the bureaucrats) were more than a little too keen to jump on the bandwagon mentality that is rampant in Vancouver vis-a-vis bicycles as a viable means of transportation. There are several flaws to this argument, not the least of which is that we have a much less hospitable terrain for cyclists, plus the smaller population, many of whom are getting a bit long in the tooth, if the demographers are to be believed, and I seem to recall that it rains and/or snows a bit more on this side of the water for at least a quarter of the year. Fortunately Council in DNV seems to have seen the light in this regard and called a halt to many of the initiatives that were being proposed by their planning department. What remains to be seen is if NVC will follow suit. It's rather ludicrous to think that we can get people commuting on bicycles up and down Cap Road in the winter months let alone significant numbers in the summer. Lonsdale is a bit of a challenge too in parts, although I admit that it is much easier to get around by bike in NVC than it will ever be in the District.
Remember though that the Mayor thought a bike escalator up Lonsdale would do the trick. Unfortunately the City has not seen the light regarding growth and continues to push the envelope encouraging density bonuses for little community benefit. We'll see how the Onni (Safeway) proposal goes on Monday.
42 comments:
Brilliant column.
But, I don't understand the reference to Ernie Crist. I will keep the blog advised if I find out.
Ernie Crist "died for parking?"
What bad taste and how insensitive.
One can make their point without stooping. It doesn't reflect well.
What does it mean? Ernie died of lung cancer.
Ernie was always concerned about traffic and pollution.
If the Lynn Valley project goes forward there will be over 2000 underground parking spots.
We don't need or want this in Lynn Valley and perhaps this is what Carolan was referring to.
Ernie always said, "The whole world does not have to move to the District of North Vancouver."
Density on Viagra? Wasn't his last controversy about a a large silver phallus/bong? (art project)
Methinks Trevor Carolan relies on sex and drugs to sell poorly written stories.
Carolan is an excellent writer.
Trevor Carolan is a mediocre writer and was an even worse politician. He belongs to that small club of bad pols who were 'unelected' by the voters after only one term.
You mean the non-Liberals?
The Official Community Plan of North Vancouver District..( OCP ) does not reflect the wishes of the people that live here. We did not buy our homes ( and PAY THE PRICE ) in the Metrotown area, although we certainly have had and continue to have that choice. We chose to buy in a less convenient, quieter, less crowded part of the world that should not fall prey to rampant densification that the Burnaby mall has.
Unfortunately, the council and its ideologically driven planners have proposed a plan that has no limit to growth in our District. Peruse this plan, and find ANY REFERENCE to the end of growth and densification. You won't find it because it has had no consideration at all. When asked, the planners, mayor and council continue on with the 'We MUST provide homes for the people who have not yet arrived here but we KNOW are going to arrive'. That's infinite growth, and will very soon result in an equivalent to Metrotown at Lynn Valley Centre, greatly increased traffic on both bridges, and a loss of 'village' ambience that I for one have never asked for as it provides me with zero benefits and many compromises to the life I chose to live here.
It is time to stand up to the development and urbanization voices that have taken control of the levers of municipal government. Building hirises will NOT improve our neighbourhoods, and it will NOT save the planet as some seem to believe.
The fact the tail (DNVManagement Staff)is wagging the dog (DNV Council) should ring loud alarums!
Very prosaic style, apart, nothing new in the argument. It's anti-density because no more people need to move to the North Shore and our property taxes should rise and our amenties should dwindle. I do take issue with his insensitive reference to Ernie Crist. Also, I have in the last2 months seen two neighbours in their 80s and 90s take advantage of this tower and continue to live in our community even thougth it was was 'rammed' down our throats. I welcome seeing Trevor at the public hearing.
As a long-time resident of Lynn Valley, I have seen the municipal politics in action.
There was a referendum in Lynn Valley in 1996 and we voted for densification, as we have seen all along Lynn Valley Road and Mountain Highway and also many zoning changes throughout Lynn Valley.
We voted for designated bike lanes on Lynn Valley Road. We did not get them. The Lynn Valley Community Association and District council didn't even put a back lane for deliveries to and from these condos.
Delivery and moving trucks regularly block a full lane on Lynn Valley Road.
It's a mess, and it's going to get worse.
Great article. This Seylynn project is ridiculous. I cannot possibly think of a worse place of densification. Our municipal politicians must need money to support their single detached homes, except for Walton and he lives in a very high end condo.
That is an astounding claim to make. Are you suggesting that Council members are on the take? That's the only way they would get money "to support their single detached homes" as you claim, because with a broader tax base, everyone's taxes--including yours if you own property--might actually go down, or at least rise less quickly!
Shame on you!
Hey Griff this whole thread has more nutty claims than usual.
You nailed the last one.
DNV Management are slipping through high density developments? For what possible purpose? They get the same wage packet if there isn't a single new shack built in N. Van unless the poster is alleging that management is getting kickbacks. If so then prove it. On the other hand some of the pols aren't adverse to lapping up some developer campaign donations.
Somehow "Liberals" are able to elect the majority of politicians even though the majority of residents apparently are non-Liberals. Nice trick if you can pull it off. Speaks poorly of the non-Liberal majority too lazy to vote.
All capped of by Carolan's absurd assertion that Ernie C. died for parking.
Want to freak out the anti-density conspiracy folk. Imagine a DNV Management Liberal who lives in a single family residence lurking around high density developments with their gas guzzling car brazenly parked nearby.
More shame to be spread around.
Awesome post Anon 5:11!
It would be possible to credit Carolan's comments with more weight if he were3 able to explain how we are going to provide housing options for seniors who can't maintain their single family homes without having them leave the community, or arrange for young families sufficient funds to purchase many of these $1 mil homes. The Town and Village centres will begin to give DNV a chance to built a financially viable future. Too many people crying for maintaining the status quo are unwilling to accept the true cost of their lifestyle. It would make a stronger argument if Carolan and his supporters signed undertakings to accept full cost of their provided services and to never accept moving from their treed single family lots in their lifetime. The position of Carolan amounts to a form of class warfare.
>> Anonymous 8:31
Tell us then, the 'true cost of their lifestyle' wont you?
While you're at it, let us know why DNV will not have a 'chance to build a finacially viable future' unless we decimate the present configuration of our neighbourhoods.
Tell us pleas.
I'm not Anon 8:31 but I think that the true cost of their lifestyle is quite obvious. Our escalting taxes that try to meet the cost of providing gov't services like police, fire, water, sewer, streets, and includes public facilities like rec centres, parks, playing fields etc.
We are approaching the upper limit of tax tolerance which will necessarily require a scaling back of services and facilities to balance them with an affordable taxation level.
A strategy used by N.V. City is to allow highrise developments which have a small physcial footprint requiring relatively low cost maintenance of street frontage, water, sewer,fire protection but generate a high return of tax dollars for the frontage utilized.
So while that answers both of Anon 11:22's questions there are other issues.
Anon 8:31 is quite right when he points out that additional small, easy care residences will be increasingly needed with our aging population. There is never a problem selling N. Shore single family homes as all real estate sells, the only question is at what price?
The cash cow tax revenue positives of high density residences are offset by greater congestion and pressure on existing local services.
In the case of N.V. City their residents can trot off to the District to use their more than 100 parks, their rec facilities and playing fields, access the District's fire dept. in emergencies, pull police from the Dist to the City as necessary which allows for their high density approach to work.
For the Dist. they will pay a premium (in taxes) to maintain the
single family neighbourhoods and will need to maintain a fine balance of revenue generators (high density) to offset the tax burden while trying to retain the neighbourhood quality of life.
Given the city permitting density like mad it will become increasingly difficult for the Dist. to satisfy all N. Van residents.
All in all we can expect to see ever increasing taxes and N. Shore congestion with a slow erosion of services as the Leave it to Beaver 1960's N. Shore lifestyle will slowly be consigned to history.
The "true cost of their lifestyle" will include the cost of replacing all of the miles of sewer and water services, roads, bridges etc. that are required to service a district of low population density. The infrastructure is breaking down and at the end of its 60 year service life. Similar to the need to replace William Griffin, with its $50 mil+ cost. DNV Council is planning to borrow $28 mil and obtain the rest through land sale of the falling down Delbrook. The loan is simply - as agreed by DNV's financial officer, another form of deferred taxes. The present residents of DNV are pushing forward the true cost of their lifestyle onto the succeeding generation. There has not been the re-investment and amortization of the present structure but everyone seems to want nothing to change. With luck many of those opposing the changes will be dead when the bill comes due and can leave it to others to clean up the mess.
The "decimation" of your neighbourhoods will happen not through the small changes of the town and village centres, but through the decay and unaffordability of our (mine included) single family neighborhoods. Can your own kids afford to live here? The OCP plan will use less than 4% of DNV land mass for a plan stretching 20 years.
The fact is DNV taxpayers are not interested in the reality of the true cost of their lifestyle. They have maxed out the credit card and are hoping someone else comes along to pay the bill.
Anon 10:21. Completely agree with your correct financial projection.
Don't believe that our single family neighbourhoods themselves will physically decay except for the water/sewer/street maintenance infrastructure that you have pointed out that must be replaced/maintained.
Residents will maintain their personal physical property, if nothing more than to retain its value.
Of course our kids can't afford to live here - that's a given and a topic that has been well discussed on this blog. However, someone can afford to live here and they will continue to purchase our residences. N. Shore real estate sells well. Perhaps the new well-heeled residents will be happy to pay the inflated taxes to
renew our crumbling infrastructure?
Time will tell.
Pathetic.
If you build it they will come.
I would appreciate it if someone would explain how demolishing low income housing and building market condos does anything positive for our community.
Anon 10:21 returning here:
Yes, as Anon 6:20 states, someone can afford to purchase our residences but most likely not to retain their current form (look at Shaunessey/Kerrisdale). North Vancouver has metamorphed from an essentially working class neighbourhood ('40s) to upper middle class (present). The rising costs will increasingly fall on those least able to absorb them (seniors on fixed income). The problems of an unbalanced tax base will accrue most severely on those who are asset rich but cash poor. Residents need to begin looking to their own long term self interest and that will require housing options beyond the existing primacy of single family neighbourhoods with mandatory automobile use dictated by distance and low density.
Anon 4:59, what low income housing are you speaking of? And what is your definition of low income housing?
Well, despite her anonymity, I believe that Wendy Q. is alive and well on this blog, with her small-minded thinking that resists change and critizes others for making a choice similar to the one that she herself made years ago, and that is to live in North Vancouver.
There is no dispute that the North Shore used to be a working class neighbourhood, but that was before bridges made it practical to build housing that was ultimately purchased by people who decided that it was a pretty nice place to live. Today, the North Shore is regarded as a relatively low-density, low crime, nice view neighbourhood that is relatively close to downtown, and people actually want to live here!!! That alone is responsible for property values being so high.
The challenge for elected officials is to manage growth in a careful way which preserves the character of existing neighbourhoods as much as possible while providing the opportunity to increase the tax base. I think the town centre concept does that.
I am not sure that it's the mandate of civic officials to provide "affordable" housing, however one chooses to define it, but I think it's a noble goal that should be fostered, especially in communities with the land base to permit such opportunities. I believe that North Vancouver falls into that category, but I question whether it's the responsibility of local government to provide it, rather senior government(s)should work with municipalities towards that goal.
Regardless of that, increase the tax base has certain advantages. How will Wendy and others react to the reality of no money to replace rotting sewer pipes in their little enclaves, without horrendous tax increases? That's what intelligently planned density does, to my way of thinking at least.
Change is inevitable and we may not like everything that happens, but if it's done right, and by that I mean carefully, it's easier to swallow.
Even now, we see significant need for replacement of sewers and other infrastructure, and if there is a broader tax base, everyone will pay less in the long run.
The change to N. Shore single family residence purchases and occupancy began decades ago and continues.
In the 50's, 60's we had a fairly homogenous local market for N. Shore residences with little foreign interest.
Increasingly we have had significant and competitive foreign purchasing that has driven our detached home costs beyond the reach of many of the local market folk, i.e. the comment that our children can't afford to live here.
Government can't afford to and shouldn't try to subsidize the general free market as it invariably ends in an expensive unsustainable mess. Many of the sunbelt US states charge foreign owners a premium on their annual property tax.
Very recently Hong Kong has implemented a similar foreign owner tax.
That approach is about the extent of gov't meddling in the free market that I would be comfortable with here except to approve senior multi-family developments to allow folks to age in their community and suites/carriage homes to allow families to care for their parents on their own property.
Limited higher density in core communities and not generally dispersed through the single family residential neighbourhoods is OK too.
Hah! In response to the leaflet dropped in our mailbox I just wrote to City hall!
District of North Vancouver District Council
Michael Hartford, Community Planner
Karen Rendek, Policy Planner, Sustainable Community Development Department
Hello all,
Earlier today our home as leafleted by a group opposed to development
in Lynn Valley.
I'd like you to know that many people in this nieghbourhood actually support densification and development.
A larger population base will bring greater variety in shopping and
services. Perhaps it will even bring some capital-C Culture to this part of North Vancouver.
A larger population base will encourage the success of the Lynn Valley Village and Mall. The status quo will leave us with a slowly dying mall that will likely wither away once Zellers has been closed.
A larger population base will bring a diversity of voices, cultures,
and ages - all of which would be very welcome.
Please add my name as SUPPORTING this development.
Barry Rueger
Honestly, the anti-development propaganda is about as fact based as the Romney propaganda down south. If you can't find facts, just make 'em up!
Then again, I haven't lived here in the same single family, all paid for house since 1947, so what could I possibly know? Heck, I probably wouldn't even yell at kids for playing on my lawn.
Barry's right. A lot of people do support the higher density. Far more than an agitated and vocal minority on this little blog would have you believe.
Sounds like your comments are no more backed up with facts that anyone else's Barry. What facts have you given? They're just your opinions. Besides it is an anti-highrise voice, not an anti-development voice that is gathering momentum in Lynn Valley. You seem to have missed that.
Wendy Q ran on no growth,
John Gilmour ran on significant densification,
Both were beat by a hair dresser and the entire previous council.
I think the vast majority of residents want a middle ground on development. Some density in the town centres, but very little change to the vast majority of single family areas.
Who believes that anyone will be listened to at the Public Hearing? It is just acting as a panacea. OCP be damned!
Wendy did not run on no growth. She knows growth is inevitable, however it should be slow prudent growth, not massive highrises built throughout the DNV built at the same time.
Hah! Barry! I just wrote to the District Planner against highrises in Lynn Valley to cancel out your letter.
"Wendy did not run on no growth. She knows growth is inevitable,"
I see Wendy is writing in the third person again.
Hey Barry. If you were such a fan of density, you would have bought in Metrotown. You didnt. I didnt. There is a reason for that.
WHy the incessant references to Metrotown? Anon 4:37, rather than heckle others for expressing their opinions, how about explaining to us why density at the town centres is a bad idea. Why it won't work. Come on, stop being lazy and do some research and develop an argument against development. Express your opinion and be prepared to support it with some facts. Stop sniping at people for their opinions. All you're doing is coming across as uninformed.
Metrotown is trotted out because it has a crappy, urban sounding name, even though it is not nearly as dense as many other areas.
I note that Safeway at Lonsdale and 13th want to develop as well. I wonder how Lonsdale is going to handle the traffic from all 3 developments?
The Mayors would like to see us out of our cars, taking transit, or riding a bike. With all the building for density, we will soon not have a choice in the matter. But if the real estate is getting sluggish, why so much building?
It seems that the two North Van councils (or is it just the bureaucrats) were more than a little too keen to jump on the bandwagon mentality that is rampant in Vancouver vis-a-vis bicycles as a viable means of transportation. There are several flaws to this argument, not the least of which is that we have a much less hospitable terrain for cyclists, plus the smaller population, many of whom are getting a bit long in the tooth, if the demographers are to be believed, and I seem to recall that it rains and/or snows a bit more on this side of the water for at least a quarter of the year. Fortunately Council in DNV seems to have seen the light
in this regard and called a halt to many of the initiatives that were being proposed by their planning department. What remains to be seen is if NVC will follow suit. It's rather ludicrous to think that we can get people commuting on bicycles up and down Cap Road in the winter months let alone significant numbers in the summer. Lonsdale is a bit of a challenge too in parts, although I admit that it is much easier to get around by bike in NVC than it will ever be in the District.
Remember though that the Mayor thought a bike escalator up Lonsdale would do the trick. Unfortunately the City has not seen the light regarding growth and continues to push the envelope encouraging density bonuses for little community benefit. We'll see how the Onni (Safeway) proposal goes on Monday.
Post a Comment